Essays on Labour-Protectionism to Neoliberalism Report

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Labour-Protectionism to Neoliberalism" is a wonderful example of a report on macro and microeconomics. Between 1890 and 1940, Australia has witnessed, as economic analysts argue, a relative economic stagnation. This is primarily because the country failed to encourage national capitalism vigorously through such frameworks as international free-trade. This failure to thrive is attributed to the deleterious effects of labourist-protectionist policies of the nation. These policies were responsible for many restrictions in the post-war period; the years that are popularly known as 'Rip van Winkle' years. Public choice theory hints at the state being too central in nature, which was captured by redistributive and sectional interests rather than those that could have catapulted it to growth.

In other words, the protectionism was so deeply entrusted into it that it went miles away from being growth-oriented (Anderson, 1987). There was a pervading power of monopoly that was seen as a hurdle towards growth. This power of monopoly could find its roots back to 1788, the year that is seen as having sown the seeds of a monopolistic partnership between the government and the private sector. There have been raging debates on Australia as a labor-protectionism state and critics often turn to the 1820s to understand the labourist-protectionist compromise.

But what is of greater interest is the period between 1920 and 1974. It was around the time Australia was emerging from the World War - I and the early 1920s were years of euphoria and confidence which, though, didn't last beyond 1926, a time when market conditions had turned very bad since Britain and Europe very now seen as stiff competitors for goods that were of primary importance to Australia.

Following this, the World War - II left a greater impact on the Australian economy, and in years from 1941 to 1949 Labour government was seen as pursuing a socialist agenda and it continued to extend public ownership of major sections of the economy including sectors as coal, banks, mines, railways, airlines, suburban transport, ships, hospitals, electricity, insurance, universities, postal services, and even telephones. Since there was a war emergency economic power saw federal centralization in vogue where the power began to be exerted through banking regulation and taxation.

References

Anderson, K. (1987). ‘Tariffs and the Manufacturing Sector’ in The Australian Economy in the Long Run (pp. 165-74). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chan-Olmsted, S.M. (1998). ‘Mergers, Acquisitions, and Convergence: The Strategic Alliances of Broadcasting, Cable Television, and Telephone Services’, Journal of Media Economics 11(3): 33–46.

Friedman, M. (1982). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hart-Landsberg, M. (2006). ‘Neoliberalism: Myths and Reality’, Monthly Review 57(11): 1–17.

Howard, H. (1998). ‘The 1996 Telecommunications Act and TV Station Ownership: 1 Year Later’, Journal of Media Economics 11(3): 21–32.

Jin, D.Y. (2005). ‘The Telecom Crisis and Beyond’, International Journal Gazette 67(3): 289–304.

Jung, J.M. (2004). ‘Acquisitions or Joint Ventures: Foreign Market Entry Strategy of US Advertising Agencies’, Journal of Media Economics 17(1): 35–50.

McChesney, R.W. (2001). ‘Global Media, Neoliberalism, and Imperialism’, Monthly Review 52(19): 1–19.

McChesney, R. (2001, March 1). Global Media, Neoliberalism, and Imperialism. Retrieved August 30, 2014, from http://monthlyreview.org/2001/03/01/global-media-neoliberalism-and-imperialism/

Peltier, S. (2004). ‘Mergers and Acquisitions in the Media Industries: Were Failures Really Unforeseeable?’, Journal of Media Economics 17(4): 261–78.

Telecommunication Regulation and Liberalization. (n.d.). Retrieved August 30, 2014, from http://www1.american.edu/initeb/mw0637a/Regulation.htm

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us